Sept 11th Viewing Negates Workers' Comp Claim

June 18, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A post September
11th workers' compensation claim has been denied after a New
York appeals court ruled that Joseph Betro lingered at the
attack site on his own volition.

An Appellate Division of state Supreme Court panel,
in a 5-0 ruling, found that by moving closer to the site of
the terrorist attacks and voluntarily watching the
destruction, Betro’s injuries “could not be said to have
arisen out of, and in the course of, his
employment.”
The decision affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Board’s
earlier decision in
Matter of Betro v Salomon-Smith Barney.

Following the September 11
th
terrorist attacks, Betro, a senior business analyst with
Salomon Smith Barney, claimed he was unable to perform his
job task due to posttraumatic stress disorder.
Originally, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge ruled Betro
was entitled to a $400-a-week workers’ compensation
benefit.

That ruling was overturned by the Workers’
Compensation Board, which determined there was “an
insufficient nexus” between Betro’s job and his
experiences in lower Manhattan on September 11
th
to make his emotional injuries work-related.

On appeal, Betro contended he was eligible for the
award because the order from Salomon Smith Barney
executives to evacuate his building exposed him to the risk
of physical injury, as well as causing him to witness
harrowing scenes around the trade center site.
The firm should have had arrangements in place to get
workers out of Manhattan altogether if they had to vacate
the building in an emergency, Betro argued.

The appeals court, following the earlier ruling of
the Workers’ Compensation Board’s, found Betro made a
“safe and uneventful evacuation” out of a Salomon Smith
Barney office building four or five blocks away from the
World Trade Center towers and was free to catch a
commuter ferry to New Jersey, where he lived.Instead, Betro walked about 50 feet to a street
with a view of the doomed trade center towers, and stood
watching the destruction for as many as 30 minutes before
he headed north toward midtown Manhattan.

“In our view, this testimony provides substantial
evidence supporting the Board’s determination that
claimant’s progress away from his workplace was sufficient
to sever any association between his employment and his
injury,” the appeals panel said.
“[T]hus, his posttraumatic stress disorder could not be
said to have arisen out of and in the course of his
employment.”